--- Dave Robillard <drobilla(a)connect.carleton.ca> wrote: As the guilty party (author of blop) I admit that when this option was added (--program-prefix for library files) it was done in blissful ignorance of the use of library basename as an identifier, as I had assumed that the Unique ID was as claimed in ladspa.h. The purpose was to avoid name clashes with generic names such as 'sawtooth' - I ended up copying swh, and append the UID (so it does have a use after all :) to the filenames. I'd meant to remove the --program-prefix option from configure, but forgot. Going by what is said on ladspa.org, I think that it was originally intended to be the way to refer to plugins, and changed as development progressed. IIRC, the UID is still required to lookup metadata with liblrdf, but this may have changed since I last looked. I don't think you'll get very far arguing the case for UIDs - the arguments against were pretty clear in the previous discussion and summarised by Chris Cannam in his response. I think we're stuck with basename+label until a better scheme can be implemented, possibly for LADSPA 2. Regarding unrelated plugins in one library, I personally don't have a problem with this as liblrdf does a fine job of categorising plugins where it's really needed (in the host). I agree here. The best option short of creating a new library distribution is to get your plugin 'adopted' into an existing library. I'm certainly willing to merge any homeless plugins into blop. I'm all for it. Maybe liase with Richard Furse to update the ladspa.org site itself? There's already a list of links there so all that is really needed is to add details for maintainers willing to adopt plugins, with appropriate provisions (kind of plugin, language, build system and so on)? - Mike ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - want a free and easy way to contact your friends online? http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com